Avatar Vs. The Hurt Locker
July 3rd 2010 06:10
Original Creative Writing:
David Jobling
Link: www.dvd.myfun.com.au
The only reason to compare Avatar and The Hurt Locker as films is because they were both nominated for Best Picture and Best Director at the Academy Awards. They are essentially so different in terms of genre there's not any other reason to look at them both, or is there?
Both Avatar and The Hurt Locker are available on DVD and this makes it so much more interesting to me - I do not always enjoy sitting with the general public in a cinema to watch a film.
The only film genres I definitely do enjoy watching with the rest of the public are funny ones. If it's a comedy, I'll go and see it because I really enjoy laughing with a crowd. I find that to be a great tonic. Otherwise I usually wait until I am looking at it on DVD at home, safe from the general masses.
No I'm not paranoid, I'm immune compromised, so I don't want to expose myself to lots of germy folk in the dark with the possibility of picking up whatever flu or bug is going around.
The Hurt Locker puts the idea up that War is a drug. According to Avatar, invasion is a drug because people can't get enough of it. Or is money the drug and invasion a by-product of the addiction?
Being inside an Avatar is probably a drug, it is certainly a trip. Being inside a bomb protection suit is clearly not a drug - more like cold turkey withdrawal from one.
Both films have common themes by degrees.
They are both looking at this terrible situation of being at war. One is a Cowboy and Indian rehash of the sophisticated evolved beings attempting to push out the native people. The other is about the sophisticated evolved beings being pushed out by the natives. The two are interchangeable on this level.
One is science fiction fantasy; the other is science fiction fact. It is a no-brainer to work out which is which.
As far as things go - I am very into science fiction. I love Sigourney Weaver. I have seen Alien many times, Aliens more than many and up to, but not including the Aliens Vs Predator franchising I really loved the story. The only story I would really want to see is the sequel to Alien Resurrection, not the spin-off Aliens Vs Predator.
Fox Studios are certainly onto something, along the lines of Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man or Godzilla Vs Pretty Much Everything, Twentieth Century Fox are remapping the whole universe based on franchise opportunities with what were iconic films to start with. After all, Alien was out around the same time as Blade Runner and Star Wars (the original series) and it stood out as a cracker of a film - amongst such worthy siblings.
Avatar could go on and on forever - in fact I imagine it will eventually be a television show. What better way to really sell the latest interactive 3D television technology?
The Hurt Locker, well it's not likely to be a television series, but that ground has more or less been covered for the time being. A M.A.S.H. style version on television may be a challenge to write - it would be a bigger challenge to get the commercial backing and advertising required to do it, not that I am saying it will never happen, I just don't see it coming.
The quality of Avatar is great; detailed, well told story, even if the story is nothing more than a rehash of an old John Wayne type of outing, it is well told and the amount of time spent covering significant plot developments is well handled. The Hurt Locker is equally great, if not better because it employs less of the CGI type of stuff.
In Australia Avatar is rated M (because of violence) and The Hurt Locker is rated MA (because of strong themes, violence and strong language) I do find this a little strange.
I think there are some very strong themes in Avatar, and as I have already suggested, the themes of the two films are quite similar in certain ways.
My copy of Avatar is around 160 minutes long; The Hurt Locker is 126 minutes long. The emotional impact of both films is strong, but The Hurt Locker brought more than one tear to my eye. Avatar simply made me feel a bit annoyed at all the hype and technology wasted on a story that I've seen before again and again.
Sure the detail is not exactly the same as so many of the films it reminds me of, but if only, if only, if only.
On the other hand there are certain things which I will name about The Hurt Locker that really struck home. This war is happening. The verite camera work seemed natural, and somewhat connected to the style of current affairs news reports we see these days when security tape of explosions caused by suicide bombers appear on the television news. I say, connected to that style, rather than the style of Polish Dziga Vertov (circa. 1919) despite the fact that some of the interior scenes definitely have his mark.
As a side note I will say this: I am not a film academic, I have not studied film as such. What I have done is had a long involvement with film from in front, behind and beside the camera. I have reviewed films for about twenty years, and the first film I worked on, The Money Movers (Dir. Bruce Beresford), was way back in 1978. I am only telling you this to encourage anyone who may think I am an academic to go and see more films and read a little about the film makers and seek out some of the films that changed the world before you were born. Now, back to my points.....
The moments of silence and pause in The Hurt Locker when Staff Sergeant James (Jeremy Renner) is faced with the much abused dead body of a local boy Beckham (Christopher Sayegh) are painfully harrowing to witness. So far from his own son and partner, so connected to this body now dead and abused, so recently under his wing so to speak. From my perspective it is a devastating scene, almost as hard as the scene where he gives the cold shoulder to a boy who more or less takes the place of the first, if they are indeed different boys, which I think they are.
For all the hype surrounding Sam Worthington in Avatar (and various other big budget wannabe block-busters; possibly more so here in Australia given he is an Australian, and publicists here, like everywhere, love the capital they can gain by really pushing the locals making good overseas) his acting seems quite stilted and performed compared to Jeremy Renner whose emotions are distant, but come to the surface from time to time in an utterly convincing way; they appear to be felt rather than performed (just to clarify the distinction I am pointing at).
Avatar has Sigourney Weaver (yay) and she bounds through her role with all the collective experience she has had acting in front of a green screen serving her well, not to mention the familiarity one feels towards an actor who seems to have spent a good deal of her career off-planet as such.
In the end, I enjoyed both films a lot, but my favourite is The Hurt Locker. The reasons could be all woolly and muddled up for the wrong reasons, because so many people have said so much about both movies, and certainly I am not especially attracted to watching a film that requires the wearing of glasses over my own glasses - another reason why I did not bother with the 3D cinema experience of Avatar.
I understand younger movie goers who have never sat through any sort of 3D before were blown away - good one. I have seen a variety of 3D and experimental films that use computer generated effects to cause pretty amazing illusions - so 3D is not going to drag me out of the house at this time, and I am certainly not likely to buy a 3D TV. I am yet to invest in a set top box even.
The Hurt Locker moved me in a way that was far deeper and more real than Avatar. Some science fiction fantasy has moved me. My feelings towards Ripley when she discovers Rebecca dead, and has to perform an autopsy on her really moved me at the time because so much of the preceding film was about Ripley and Newt (Rebecca) developing trust and a kind of mother and child bond that is quite rare within the genre. Although having said that, I do agree that this story element of parent child relations has really been employed a great deal by recent sci-fi films. In fact it is starting to seem like a new cliche (War of the Worlds, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, to name a few).
The Hurt Locker is also better bang for my buck because it creates such contrast between the decisions faced by the lead protagonist. The yellow wire verses the green wire, or Lucky Charms verses Cinnamon Toast Crunch. These are the realities being faced by so many men and women, but mostly men, serving in alien countries trying to defend a righteous cause, a universal set of values, or simply do their job.
Yes, war is a drug; adrenalin is addictive, so is freedom. I have found Science Fiction to also be addictive. The best SciFi is challenging on more than one level, and it makes one consider consequences that are relative to reality. There is a lot of fun to be had thinking what if. To be really honest, The Hurt Locker will sit on my DVD shelf and come out to be played a little less than Avatar because I am still not exactly sure that I have seen Avatar from start to finish without zoning out for a cat-nap once, twice or more times. Avatar is a fanciful entertainment that I will happily sit through smiling. The Hurt Locker is an intense and riveting film that I will watch when I really feel the need to look at some great acting and solid film making.
They are both great films in their own way. On me, the intensity and reality of The Hurt Locker has made the greater impression. If I had to decide which film deserved the Academy Award, I would be handing it to Kathryn Bigelow for best film and James Cameron for developing new technologies in film.
Final word goes to Guy Pearce. A small role, but a good one; seeing him supporting a low budget feature after some of his big budget flops has restored my faith that he is a great actor with the most extraordinary cheekbones on screen today.
David Jobling
The only film genres I definitely do enjoy watching with the rest of the public are funny ones. If it's a comedy, I'll go and see it because I really enjoy laughing with a crowd. I find that to be a great tonic. Otherwise I usually wait until I am looking at it on DVD at home, safe from the general masses.
No I'm not paranoid, I'm immune compromised, so I don't want to expose myself to lots of germy folk in the dark with the possibility of picking up whatever flu or bug is going around.
The Hurt Locker puts the idea up that War is a drug. According to Avatar, invasion is a drug because people can't get enough of it. Or is money the drug and invasion a by-product of the addiction?
Being inside an Avatar is probably a drug, it is certainly a trip. Being inside a bomb protection suit is clearly not a drug - more like cold turkey withdrawal from one.
Both films have common themes by degrees.
They are both looking at this terrible situation of being at war. One is a Cowboy and Indian rehash of the sophisticated evolved beings attempting to push out the native people. The other is about the sophisticated evolved beings being pushed out by the natives. The two are interchangeable on this level.
One is science fiction fantasy; the other is science fiction fact. It is a no-brainer to work out which is which.
As far as things go - I am very into science fiction. I love Sigourney Weaver. I have seen Alien many times, Aliens more than many and up to, but not including the Aliens Vs Predator franchising I really loved the story. The only story I would really want to see is the sequel to Alien Resurrection, not the spin-off Aliens Vs Predator.
Fox Studios are certainly onto something, along the lines of Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man or Godzilla Vs Pretty Much Everything, Twentieth Century Fox are remapping the whole universe based on franchise opportunities with what were iconic films to start with. After all, Alien was out around the same time as Blade Runner and Star Wars (the original series) and it stood out as a cracker of a film - amongst such worthy siblings.
Avatar could go on and on forever - in fact I imagine it will eventually be a television show. What better way to really sell the latest interactive 3D television technology?
The Hurt Locker, well it's not likely to be a television series, but that ground has more or less been covered for the time being. A M.A.S.H. style version on television may be a challenge to write - it would be a bigger challenge to get the commercial backing and advertising required to do it, not that I am saying it will never happen, I just don't see it coming.
The quality of Avatar is great; detailed, well told story, even if the story is nothing more than a rehash of an old John Wayne type of outing, it is well told and the amount of time spent covering significant plot developments is well handled. The Hurt Locker is equally great, if not better because it employs less of the CGI type of stuff.
In Australia Avatar is rated M (because of violence) and The Hurt Locker is rated MA (because of strong themes, violence and strong language) I do find this a little strange.
I think there are some very strong themes in Avatar, and as I have already suggested, the themes of the two films are quite similar in certain ways.
My copy of Avatar is around 160 minutes long; The Hurt Locker is 126 minutes long. The emotional impact of both films is strong, but The Hurt Locker brought more than one tear to my eye. Avatar simply made me feel a bit annoyed at all the hype and technology wasted on a story that I've seen before again and again.
Sure the detail is not exactly the same as so many of the films it reminds me of, but if only, if only, if only.
On the other hand there are certain things which I will name about The Hurt Locker that really struck home. This war is happening. The verite camera work seemed natural, and somewhat connected to the style of current affairs news reports we see these days when security tape of explosions caused by suicide bombers appear on the television news. I say, connected to that style, rather than the style of Polish Dziga Vertov (circa. 1919) despite the fact that some of the interior scenes definitely have his mark.
The moments of silence and pause in The Hurt Locker when Staff Sergeant James (Jeremy Renner) is faced with the much abused dead body of a local boy Beckham (Christopher Sayegh) are painfully harrowing to witness. So far from his own son and partner, so connected to this body now dead and abused, so recently under his wing so to speak. From my perspective it is a devastating scene, almost as hard as the scene where he gives the cold shoulder to a boy who more or less takes the place of the first, if they are indeed different boys, which I think they are.
For all the hype surrounding Sam Worthington in Avatar (and various other big budget wannabe block-busters; possibly more so here in Australia given he is an Australian, and publicists here, like everywhere, love the capital they can gain by really pushing the locals making good overseas) his acting seems quite stilted and performed compared to Jeremy Renner whose emotions are distant, but come to the surface from time to time in an utterly convincing way; they appear to be felt rather than performed (just to clarify the distinction I am pointing at).
Avatar has Sigourney Weaver (yay) and she bounds through her role with all the collective experience she has had acting in front of a green screen serving her well, not to mention the familiarity one feels towards an actor who seems to have spent a good deal of her career off-planet as such.
In the end, I enjoyed both films a lot, but my favourite is The Hurt Locker. The reasons could be all woolly and muddled up for the wrong reasons, because so many people have said so much about both movies, and certainly I am not especially attracted to watching a film that requires the wearing of glasses over my own glasses - another reason why I did not bother with the 3D cinema experience of Avatar.
I understand younger movie goers who have never sat through any sort of 3D before were blown away - good one. I have seen a variety of 3D and experimental films that use computer generated effects to cause pretty amazing illusions - so 3D is not going to drag me out of the house at this time, and I am certainly not likely to buy a 3D TV. I am yet to invest in a set top box even.
The Hurt Locker moved me in a way that was far deeper and more real than Avatar. Some science fiction fantasy has moved me. My feelings towards Ripley when she discovers Rebecca dead, and has to perform an autopsy on her really moved me at the time because so much of the preceding film was about Ripley and Newt (Rebecca) developing trust and a kind of mother and child bond that is quite rare within the genre. Although having said that, I do agree that this story element of parent child relations has really been employed a great deal by recent sci-fi films. In fact it is starting to seem like a new cliche (War of the Worlds, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, to name a few).
The Hurt Locker is also better bang for my buck because it creates such contrast between the decisions faced by the lead protagonist. The yellow wire verses the green wire, or Lucky Charms verses Cinnamon Toast Crunch. These are the realities being faced by so many men and women, but mostly men, serving in alien countries trying to defend a righteous cause, a universal set of values, or simply do their job.
Yes, war is a drug; adrenalin is addictive, so is freedom. I have found Science Fiction to also be addictive. The best SciFi is challenging on more than one level, and it makes one consider consequences that are relative to reality. There is a lot of fun to be had thinking what if. To be really honest, The Hurt Locker will sit on my DVD shelf and come out to be played a little less than Avatar because I am still not exactly sure that I have seen Avatar from start to finish without zoning out for a cat-nap once, twice or more times. Avatar is a fanciful entertainment that I will happily sit through smiling. The Hurt Locker is an intense and riveting film that I will watch when I really feel the need to look at some great acting and solid film making.
They are both great films in their own way. On me, the intensity and reality of The Hurt Locker has made the greater impression. If I had to decide which film deserved the Academy Award, I would be handing it to Kathryn Bigelow for best film and James Cameron for developing new technologies in film.
Final word goes to Guy Pearce. A small role, but a good one; seeing him supporting a low budget feature after some of his big budget flops has restored my faith that he is a great actor with the most extraordinary cheekbones on screen today.
David Jobling
| 60 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
David Jobling
